I just played this game several times, and I found out ont or two things that made me wonder :

- when it's your last turn, you have Leprechauns and still some Pot of Gold, do you get the remaining ones after the turn of the last player or not ?

- When you have Ghouls in decline, can you attack with them and decline with the active race ? Or I think you can do nothing else when you decline, but as it is stated you attack with Ghouls in decline before attacking with the active race...

- During your last turn, it is useless to place your remaining Pots of Gold on the map, as you won't be able to get them. As stated by the rules, you are supposed to get your Pots at the start of your next turn, but in the case you describe, there is no next turn for you ! ^^

- When you decline with your active race, you are not allowed to attack with your Ghouls in decline.

Question: At the start of your turn, can you both pick a non-Stout race and decline it in that same turn?

I think the answer is "no", as just the act of picking the race would be considered taking an action on your turn, and the rule of thumb is you can't do anything but decline on a turn if you're declining.

It seems like a stupid question, but it came up in play because there were some Dwarves that had a ton of VPs on them where people had passed them by. Nobody wanted them because of the layout of the races already on the board due to their likely quick defeat. But if you could draw them and immediately decline them, taking a new race next turn, it would be worth it.

It seems like something that maybe SHOULD be allowed, though, since it almost never would be a thing any sane person would want to do, and it would hurt no one but the player doing it.

If you want to get the ton of coins deposited on the Dwarves, you will have to play at least one turn with them before being able to put them in decline. (Otherwise you could also take them during the last turn of the game).

I know this is from long, long ago, but I read this whole thread (in hopes of the stupid Flying sorcerer adjacent-but-not-adjacent rule getting overturned) and never saw it commented on.

There is one slight way around this in many situations. You just have to abandon a region (following abandonment rules) and re-conquer territories you already have. Obviously, there are limitations to this but it I think most of the times you'll be able to shuffle around tiles during Ready Your Troops.

Example:

I want to move a dragon from a Forest where I have a dragon and a single Ratman. I pick up the dragon/ratman, abandoning the region. I also pick up two ratmen that are on a Farm tile. I then re-conquer the Farm with the single ratman/dragon and re-conquer the Forest with the two ratmen.

Like I said, some limitations. You can only do this if you abandon the regions before starting conquests. And if you abandoned Fortress, Hole in the Ground, etc. it would be forfeit (Troll Caves are ok since they go back when you re-conquer the regions). And so on.

Speaking of dragons, I just realized that Kobolds have to send along TWO Kobolds with dragons to do their stuff.

I find myself at the end of my conquests needing to take my 4 Amazons back off the board. Can I pick any number of Amazons from any region (including those with 1, 2, 3, etc.) to pick up? The way it's worded in the FAQ is:You must leave at least one race token in each region conquered at the end of your turn, except for the amazons. In this case you must take off four race tokens, abandoning regions you've just conquered if required.

The "you've just conquered" is a bit confusing. I would think it should be "regions you occupy" instead. Meaning it doesn't have to come from new conquests this round. Otherwise, you have to really keep track of a lot of things so you know at the end of the round which is which.

Example:
At the start of my turn, I have only the 4 bonus Amazons in my hand. I use all 4 to capture one region. Can I then take 3 off that region and 1 off another previously occupied region (therefore abandoning it) to fulfill taking 4 Amazons off the map?

I would think I could. All the rules actually state is:

At the end of each of your Troop Redeployments (see Troop Redeployment, p. 5), remove four tokens from the map, making sure to leave at least one Amazon token in each of your Regions if possible

It doesn't say anything there about regions you've "just conquered". Was this a clarification by DoW or was this just an accident of phrasing when typing up the FAQ?

I find myself at the end of my conquests needing to take my 4 Amazons back off the board. Can I pick any number of Amazons from any region (including those with 1, 2, 3, etc.) to pick up? The way it's worded in the FAQ is:You must leave at least one race token in each region conquered at the end of your turn, except for the amazons. In this case you must take off four race tokens, abandoning regions you've just conquered if required.

The "you've just conquered" is a bit confusing. I would think it should be "regions you occupy" instead. Meaning it doesn't have to come from new conquests this round. Otherwise, you have to really keep track of a lot of things so you know at the end of the round which is which.

Example:
At the start of my turn, I have only the 4 bonus Amazons in my hand. I use all 4 to capture one region. Can I then take 3 off that region and 1 off another previously occupied region (therefore abandoning it) to fulfill taking 4 Amazons off the map?

I would think I could. All the rules actually state is:

At the end of each of your Troop Redeployments (see Troop Redeployment, p. 5), remove four tokens from the map, making sure to leave at least one Amazon token in each of your Regions if possible

It doesn't say anything there about regions you've "just conquered". Was this a clarification by DoW or was this just an accident of phrasing when typing up the FAQ?

I've got a tricky question for you guys, because it implies a power of my own creation :

Magic (5) : from every Magic region you conquer or own, you may conquer an adjacent region as though it was empty, once per turn and per Magic region.

My question is : what would happen with Magic Gobelins ? Should the two powers be addable ? I think they should : an adjacent region that is not a mountain and occupied by an in-decline race may be conquered as though it was empty (so 2 tokens) with a bonus of -1 token due to the Gobelins' power (so only one token at last). What do you think ?

Magic (5) : from every Magic region you conquer or own, you may conquer an adjacent region as though it was empty, once per turn and per Magic region.

First of all, I think this should be worded more clearly...
"You may conquer 1 region adjacent to every Magic Region you own for 1 less token."

As for your question...

blaxnlion wrote on Thu, 15 August 2013 05:41

My question is : what would happen with Magic Gobelins ? Should the two powers be addable?

I don't see why Goblins should be discriminated against. Of course the 2 powers should be able to work in concert. Just like any other race combination, a player should be able to gain the benefits of both the power and the race. If your Magic Goblins own Magic Regions which are adjacent to Declined Regions, you should be able to conquer them for 2 less tokens.

My only real concern is that your power "Magic" is a bit underpowered. I would prefer it to allow players to conquer all regions adjacent to a Magic Region for 1 less token. No limits such as 1 per turn, etc. Just my opinion.
Hope this helps!

Magic (5) : from every Magic region you conquer or own, you may conquer an adjacent region as though it was empty, once per turn and per Magic region.

First of all, I think this should be worded more clearly...
"You may conquer 1 region adjacent to every Magic Region you own for 1 less token."

As for your question...

blaxnlion wrote on Thu, 15 August 2013 05:41

My question is : what would happen with Magic Gobelins ? Should the two powers be addable?

I don't see why Goblins should be discriminated against. Of course the 2 powers should be able to work in concert. Just like any other race combination, a player should be able to gain the benefits of both the power and the race. If your Magic Goblins own Magic Regions which are adjacent to Declined Regions, you should be able to conquer them for 2 less tokens.

My only real concern is that your power "Magic" is a bit underpowered. I would prefer it to allow players to conquer all regions adjacent to a Magic Region for 1 less token. No limits such as 1 per turn, etc. Just my opinion.
Hope this helps!

No, the power consists of conquering a region as though it was empty, not with one less token, like the Flames. If it hadn't been the case, of course I wouldn't have asked. I was just telling myself that the "as though it was empty" meant not minding anything inside it. If Gobelins don't mind, then they shouldn't have the right to apply their power, although I am more keen on doing the opposite.

As for the appropriateness of this question in the thread, I don't think it really matters at this point. Does anybody read this far down the thread for a game that came out in 2009?

Anyway, in an effort to keep this question applicable to the subject matter of this particular thread, I think it's still worth pointing out that there is no power which when paired with a race makes the racial power unusable or negated. I don't think the "Magic Goblins" or any other combination should veer from that.

As for the appropriateness of this question in the thread, I don't think it really matters at this point. Does anybody read this far down the thread for a game that came out in 2009?

Anyway, in an effort to keep this question applicable to the subject matter of this particular thread, I think it's still worth pointing out that there is no power which when paired with a race makes the racial power unusable or negated. I don't think the "Magic Goblins" or any other combination should veer from that.

Since, at this point, this FAQ thread is the only official answer to questions, I would say that yes, people will read this far down for a very popular game that came out in 2009.

I think it's appropriate, because it concerns a power that already exists (for Flames) and asking the question might solve the problem of people asking themselves the same kind of question. If it can make you feel any better, I hesitated between posting it here and in a new thread.

I've always felt the official faq was for answers to questions about the official products, not custom races or powers. Even the justification about the flames doesn't really work for me since in the official game you can't have flames and goblins together.

I'd agree with Rasmussen that custom power or races questions should have their own thread. No one should expect an official answer on their custom ideas.

I've always felt the official faq was for answers to questions about the official products, not custom races or powers. Even the justification about the flames doesn't really work for me since in the official game you can't have flames and goblins together.

I'd agree with Rasmussen that custom power or races questions should have their own thread. No one should expect an official answer on their custom ideas.

I'm glad I'm not the only one! It's not that I don't think you can have people discuss your custom race, it's just that the Official FAQ thread is not the right place for that conversation. Start a new thread and talk about it as much as you want.

This makes the 8th post about this poor guy's question.
Ironically it's a result of folks complaining about visual clutter in the "Official FAQ Thread".
It was asked and answered already. No further "thread policing" is necessary.

In a similar note, Rasmussen, your Memoir 44 tagline/signature takes up more space in this thread than all of the discussion about the Magic Goblins combined...if you really want to cut down on off-topic visual clutter...
Just saying.

Thanks, Dannymack, but anyway, I apologise if you guys think my question was inappropriate. I'll redeem myself with one true question :

Elves lose a token when converted into a Sorcerer, but what about Pygmies ? They should lose a token as well, without being able to get one or more back. Basically, in average, you can expect one Pygmy back when you throw the die, the same as Elves, when both are conquered. Do you get my point ? To sum up, it would be unfair to allow Pygmies to be able to get tokens back when Elves don't, because otherwise it would give them a huge advantage. Plus, Sorcerers can convert, they don't slaughter. Pygmies' power seems to consist in calling spirits back from the dead when one of them dies, am I right ?

In a similar note, Rasmussen, your Memoir 44 tagline/signature takes up more space in this thread than all of the discussion about the Magic Goblins combined...if you really want to cut down on off-topic visual clutter...
Just saying.

It's not about visual clutter. It's about home-made variants (that are lots of fun for people and I have no problem with) being posted in the Official FAQ thread. But you're right, enough has been said about this.

blaxnlion wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 23:50

Thanks, Dannymack, but anyway, I apologise if you guys think my question was inappropriate.

Not inappropriate. It's a fine question; it's just posted in the wrong place.

Quote:

I'll redeem myself with one true question :

Elves lose a token when converted into a Sorcerer, but what about Pygmies ? They should lose a token as well, without being able to get one or more back. Basically, in average, you can expect one Pygmy back when you throw the die, the same as Elves, when both are conquered. Do you get my point ? To sum up, it would be unfair to allow Pygmies to be able to get tokens back when Elves don't, because otherwise it would give them a huge advantage. Plus, Sorcerers can convert, they don't slaughter. Pygmies' power seems to consist in calling spirits back from the dead when one of them dies, am I right ?

I'm afraid the Pygmies get to roll no matter who they are taken over, so in your example they get to roll even if the Sorcerer converts one of their tokens. At least that's how the iPad version works...

In a similar note, Rasmussen, your Memoir 44 tagline/signature takes up more space in this thread than all of the discussion about the Magic Goblins combined...if you really want to cut down on off-topic visual clutter...
Just saying.

It's not about visual clutter. It's about home-made variants (that are lots of fun for people and I have no problem with) being posted in the Official FAQ thread. But you're right, enough has been said about this.

blaxnlion wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 23:50

Thanks, Dannymack, but anyway, I apologise if you guys think my question was inappropriate.

Not inappropriate. It's a fine question; it's just posted in the wrong place.

Quote:

I'll redeem myself with one true question :

Elves lose a token when converted into a Sorcerer, but what about Pygmies ? They should lose a token as well, without being able to get one or more back. Basically, in average, you can expect one Pygmy back when you throw the die, the same as Elves, when both are conquered. Do you get my point ? To sum up, it would be unfair to allow Pygmies to be able to get tokens back when Elves don't, because otherwise it would give them a huge advantage. Plus, Sorcerers can convert, they don't slaughter. Pygmies' power seems to consist in calling spirits back from the dead when one of them dies, am I right ?

I'm afraid the Pygmies get to roll no matter who they are taken over, so in your example they get to roll even if the Sorcerer converts one of their tokens. At least that's how the iPad version works...

But it's unfair as Pygmies get a huge advantage ! It shoudn't work like this ^^ Don't you think ?

I didn't claim that it was fair; I just shared what the rule is according to the iPad which is therefore the official rules. The whole point of playing these games, though, is to have fun so if it seems more fair and more fun to play your way then go for it! As long as you're having fun then it's all good.

But in a tournament or online you will find that the Pygmies can roll no matter how they lose tokens.

The "advantage" of Pygmies is not huge.
Anyway, when facing Sorcerers, one tries not to leave isolated tokens in the conquered regions.
Sorcerers can only convert one token of a given race per turn, so they can be countered.

I've got questions about abandoning regions. Can I at the beginning of my turn abandon each of my region and then attack as if it were my first attack ? Are there any restrictions to that ?

I ask because berserk elves in 2 player game seems to be very powerful. I don't lose my elves so I have always 10 of them, when my oppenent declines and in next turn takes new race I abandon each region and destroy his new race (of course sometimes it takes 2 turns but I have always 10 elves to attack so that's not the problem : ). In that situation I have to rely on dice but in most cases it goes quite good ; )

Yes, this is perfectly fine. You should abandon all the regions you're going to abandon before making your initial conquest of the turn, though. And if you abandon them all, you need to follow first conquest rules to come back on the board.

And yes, it's a nice combination. Your opponent has to find a way to neutralize this by declining and picking a race that has some advantage against your elves. Them's the breaks.

I have a question about Ghouls : are you allowed to pick them, go immediatly into decline and attack with them next turn ? I'm asking that because I imagined the moment when someone grabs Wealthy Ghouls...

No. Going into decline must be the first and last thing you do on your turn.

The only slight exception is Stout which lets you go into decline after scoring. But I have been told that even with Stout, you may not decline on the turn you picked them on. That rule still seems a little questionably unofficial to me, though.

No. Going into decline must be the first and last thing you do on your turn.

The only slight exception is Stout which lets you go into decline after scoring. But I have been told that even with Stout, you may not decline on the turn you picked them on. That rule still seems a little questionably unofficial to me, though.